Should you:

a Run it the whole length?

b Run it in the first foot?

c Run it in the last foot?

I see it at the beginning of dredge sluices, but wonder, wouldn't it work better at the tail end as the water should have slowed down by then?

Thoughts?

I dont think miners moss is allways a good thing in a sluce box. Black sands are the bain of the miner, they indicate where gold may be but make recovering gold with a sluce box harder as they impede the action of the riffle.

A sluce box is a concentrator and like a placer, a residual placer at least and its primary form of enrichment is by eliminating worthless material.If you trap a bunch of black sands in miners moss they do not get washed out, consequently the efficiency of enrichment is decreased. Most black sands are far far lighter than Gold, and they are not Gold, they need to be washed away. Have faith in your sluce set up and its design.

Miners moss also decreases the efficiency of your sluce in another way, it reduces the relitive height of your riffle, thus reducing its effect. Think of how much Gold stops at the V-mat at most sluces input, the rest of it will work just as well. Miners moss has its place in certain situations, but carte-blanche is more bad than good in my opinion.

THX
Jay

Interesting.

I can only report that my older model Keene A51 has better gold retainage with moss than without. I use it the full length, under the riffles and expanded metal.

This weekend, while using a 2 1/2 inch dredge, I did get so loaded up with black sand due to the vast amount in the hole I was in, that I finanlly just had to use the dredge to feed buckets that I subsequently panned to black sand with my Le-Trap pan and then did a clean up on the sand with a mini recirc that I made. I find I can pan as fast as the mini can run, but with a lot more energy spent. I did pan the tailings from the first gallon, but when I didn't find more than one teeny weenie spec, I didn't bother for the rest.

I intend to send the black sand to a refiner anyway for evaluation, so missing a couple of specs is no biggy.

Question your findings, the probability of somthing other than the moss effecting your recovery is more likely than not.

I like most prospectors beleive what they see with their own eyes. However most of our experiences are not quantitive or scientific or reproducable they are the experiment of one.

You may have been in a better hole the day you sluced with moss. The addition of any big pieces of gold will un intentionally salt a sample. That one little piece makes it seem like there is so much more Gold. There is also a Placibo effect when it comes to gadgit-try.

To be perfectly honest, for people like you and me its errelivent other than for the purposes of learning, semantics, ect.

THX
Jay

Jay, I know how you love to think but its getten a little deep here.

I just want to prospect and have fun diggen in the dirt. Finding any gold is fun

{NSX15-IEJOF}

Jay,

You are right. It could be that I was just in a better hole, but I was in the same hole on two different days and running two sluices side by side, alternating scoops from the same bucket. All classified to 1/4".

Once I added the miners moss, there was more gold in the Keene compared to without and the "other" sluice had the same amount both times.

So for East Fork dirt, I am pretty sure moss is the way to go. This was full length moss, by the way.

Your completly making wagonmasters point for him. You said yourself all the gold was from the same bucket. That was all your going to catch in either sluce whats in that one bucket.

Secondly the issue is, how much deleterious materials had to be reconcentrated in another stage, ie screening, magnetically, mercury

As wagonmaster says its all irrelevent you just want to have fun and find gold don't you?

Joe,

I think you missed my point. I ran two sluices at the same time. On one day, the Keene didn't have moss, the next day it did. The second sluice was a Le-Trap and it caught more gold on the first day than the Keene and the second day the Keene caught the same amount. Both days they were fed from a bucket, alternating scoops, from the same hole.

Comparing the capture between the two sluices on each day, the day with the moss caught more gold. The second sluice caught the same amount each day. So, on the second day, the Keene with moss caught more gold.

And yes, I want to have fun, but I would like to keep all the gold I dig, as I don't like to waste effort. So I want the best, most efficient way to work, while I work. I mean you could go out and pan with a just a 1/2 inch classifier and no pan at all, but why would you?

The variation of distribution due to stratification if gold in a classified buck will induce variations in the amount of gold in a scoop.

My point your methods dont seem empirical enough draw accurate conclusions or to make positive statements like you have.

Your point about efficientcy is well taken. Perhaps we are all missing points.

Joe,

Can you explain how classification into a bucket and then alternating scoops from that bucket into two sluices at at the same time, " . .will induce variations in the amount of gold in a scoop. "

I mean if I vibrated the bucket and put the top half in one, and the bottom half in the other, I can see your point, but my classifier doens't vibrate the bucket and just drops one layer of dirt on another. Carrying it the few feet to the sluices and then alternate spooning, seems a pretty fair way to get some of each level into each sluice even if there is some settling of the gold. It takes about 4 scoops to get all the way around the bucket at each approx 2" level.

I should say, that I do this each day I work, as using two sluices makes for faster running of the material so I can get the bucket emptied faster and get back to digging, so the more or less even collection of material between both sluices has be consistently shown. It is getting harder to do this as my kids are now trying to take a sluice off to their own "diggins", but that will be fixed this weekend as they buy their own sluice at the gold show.

The stratification can occur just by the adjitation action of classification into the bucket. Not to mention the variation in the amount of gold in each shovel-ful you put into the classifier, this will an annomolie in gold values in different layres of concentrates.

For a good read on sampling techniques and Placer Examination in general is BLM Technical Bullitan #4, Placer Examination Principal and Practice.

Get a copy at the Gold show if you can, I am on the look out for a crisp new copy for my personal library, so I hope there is more than one.

THX
Jay

kg you did not say if the moss was green or blue

do you know if gold or black sands statically react with the

gray or blue le trap better?

if i get you right

the keene vs trap are similar yield

which one is less labor intensive at cleanup?

is one capable of processing materials faster?

I ACCEPT YOUR opinion as reasonable but....

Nitwit,

The moss in the Keene is Blue, the moss in the DFS is Green.

There is no static attraction in the letrap. Static is due to dry air and the water means it is not dry. It will ground out any charge that may develope instantly.

I am only familiar with the Green for the LeTrap. Never have seen a gray or blue. Do you mean the Mackirk and/or the Eldorado?

The Keene with moss is about equal to the Le-trap as far as holding the gold. The Le-Trap runs about 2X faster than the Keene, the DFS 3X faster than the Le-Trap.

The Le-Trap is easily the easiest to clean of my three. Just tip it up and pour and then splash. No clips, grids, washers, nuts, expanded, riffles, carpet or moss to deal with.

Yes, these are only my empirical opinions. Your mileage may vary.

A more scientific test with controls and or double blind studies could be done, but we are only talking about gold.

Jay,

I really don't think there is much of an anomaly in 10 buckets of dirt run through two sluices. I think any variation would average out. Seeing as how the performance has held consistent for multiple trips, I think I will continue this process.

I would. I have been diggen in the same spots for so long I cant say. None of it has anything to do with my equiptment. Sometimes the recovery is poor but with a little thought and effort it allways gets better.

Catman says your a builder, what do you build? I have some neet Ideas for a mining machiene that I would like your opinion on. One is a drywash vibrating screen powered buy a concentrick shaft, electric blower and electrostatic filters made for air-conditioners. It will have riffles and an electric vibrator for the Trays. I say trays because its gona be big. Made to load with a wheelbarrow.

I will take it to the Irie Claims in the Mud Hills.

THX
Jay

I would best be classified as a home builder or handyman and I have some mechanical understandings, but I think your project is a little out of my field. I would be happy to look at it, but I really can't promise you anything. I tend to build what I cannot find and I can usually figure out why something works the way it does or does not.